R-27 ET "Anomalies"

[nscode]

One note from me: afaik, those manuals are rarely used ;)

[Breakshot]

Break's russian is sketchy and bivol's is not

Now pardon me, I think you should change that line for sure. Its just like saying to a Portugese that you are speaking spanish. I have been speaking russian since i was born and learnt english only recently. My traslation of the manual is completely correct. Only my opinions derrived from that translaton could be wrong

[Shepski]

 

In lock on:

ET needs inertial guidance (not command updated)

ET should have a more limited seeker.

 

Regarding the amraam, I have no info at all on this and can only speculate. But I think its still the best radar missile in the game. Just by looking at my own stats in 504 server, it is the missile that killed me most.

 

 

The ET already has initial flyout guidance when launched(overide) with a sensor lock.

 

Seeker limits I know nothing about. :)

 

I just flew the F-15C in the 169th server last night for the first time in quite awhile and had no problem getting kills with the AIM-120.

 

One reason I believe we see so many ET kills online, other then the sneaky stealth ones) is because the target is always notching out the ER shots and as the engagement unfolds and the range reduces the ET becomes a useful missile. But, now I'm starting to see this maddoging mania going on more and more online... but if you know it's coming you can beat it.

[Pilotasso]

Now pardon me, I think you should change that line for sure. Its just like saying to a Portugese that you are speaking spanish. I have been speaking russian since i was born and learnt english only recently. My traslation of the manual is completely correct. Only my opinions derrived from that translaton could be wrong

 

My bad. I had the disticnt inpression of that after Bivol's comments and after the huge divergence of your interpretations. Editing.

[Shepski]

 

...aditionaly to the ED staff who say the ET cant be maddogged (very far fetched if so at best) and they are russian.

 

What Russian ED staff who participated in this thread said the ET can't be maddogged?

[Pilotasso]

aw man, I'm about to play online...will search all 28 pages later geez LOL :D

[Shepski]

aw man, I'm about to play online...will search all 28 pages later geez LOL :D

 

I'll make it easy... no one from Eagle Dymanics in Moscow participated in this thread... just Eagle beta team members and none from Russia. :)

 

Me - Canada

Alpha - Denmark

Swingkid - Canada

GGTharos - Canada

Evibivol - USA

Ironhand - USA

D-Sythe - Canada

Ice - Australia

 

I hope I didn't forget anyone!

[GGTharos]

I think he may be referring to JJ's chat with Octavian who I -believe- is an expert ont he MiG's WCS for one reason or another.

[Alfa]

I think he may be referring to JJ's chat with Octavian who I -believe- is an expert ont he MiG's WCS for one reason or another.

 

Hehe....Octavian is Romanian :) .

 

Too bad he hasnt been around the forum for a long time......would have been interesting to hear his opinion in this discussion.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[D-Scythe]

I'll make it easy... no one from Eagle Dymanics in Moscow participated in this thread... just Eagle beta team members and none from Russia. :)

 

Me - Canada

Alpha - Denmark

Swingkid - Canada

GGTharos - Canada

Evibivol - USA

Ironhand - USA

D-Sythe - Europe I believe

Ice - Australia

 

I hope I didn't forget anyone!

 

Canada! :p

[Shepski]

Aha! I had no idea... where?

[Gripes]

Aha! I had no idea...

 

After 29 pages, "Aha, I had no idea..." sums it up for me... jk:)

Now I`m motivated, on a quest to learn about the real ET.

[EvilBivol-1]

Wow, I really wish I could've stayed up all night and kept up with this!

 

It'll take me quite a while to write up a full response, including some citations of my own, so let me begin by saying that I disagreed with Breakshot's interpretations because he seemed to use them to his favor, irrespective of the context in which they were written. For example, the "uncontrolled launch" procedure appears to me to have nothing to do with the seeker of the missile even attempting to find a target. It is simply firing off the missile on a ballistic trajectory to get rid of it, not to hit anything. But, my own interpretation may be wrong as well, so I will try to include a few more citations below, as well as comment on the ones already provided.

 

"CУВ" (pronounced "SOOV") = Система Управления Вооружением = Weapons Control System (WCS).

 

"ЗПС" (pronounced "Z-P-S") = Задняя Полусфера = Rear Hemisphere

 

"ППС" (pronounced "P-P-S")= Передняя Полусфера = Forward Hemisphere

 

P.S. Before we get dirty (:D), Breakshot, where are from and how did you get so good with English? Sounds very natual.

[EvilBivol-1]

So, in yet another futile attempt to sum up this discussion, the original problem was that you could fire off an IR -27 prior to achieving "LA" via Lock On's LA-Override function, which means the seeker has not yet aqcuired the target and, if the shot was placed well enough, the seeker of the missile will eventually find the target and begin homing on it. This is without a data-link to the missile, but simply given the "flyout" coordinates prior to launch. The question we're now debating is whether even this is possible in real life, because evidence seems to suggest that in real life, the -27T/TEs NEED to be LOCKED ON to the target with their own seekers prior to being released off the rails.

 

Given this, Breakshot has provided a few examples from the manual which allegedly point to the missile's ability to be employed prior to attaining lock, while I, as well as a few others, will argue the opposite, given the same set of documents (lol).

 

Do I pretty much have it?

[GGTharos]

Yuo pretty much have it ... I'm relying on something more than just that manual though (which I can't really read ;) )

[D-Scythe]

Aha! I had no idea... where?

 

Toronto...I actually had no idea Canadians were so well represented in LOMAC :)

[Kenan]

^^ I really love your signature. :=)

[AJ.eightFive]

Wow, I can't believe I just read all 29 pages of this "discussion".

 

First a few of observations based on what I have seen in these and other flight sim forums (but particularly IL-2 and Lock On where multiple coalitions are represented by the flyables). In such discussions it seems fairly easy to divide participants in the online flight simming arena into 3 distinct groups.

 

Group A pilots fly certain aircraft out of principle, perhaps because it is their favourite aircraft or because they are fiercely patriotic and can't stand flying for the "bad guys". For the most part they don't mind taking heavy losses so long as the experience is realistic. at least in their eyes. I add this caveat because such pilots are often drawn into heated debate about aircraft/weapon performance based on their (usally patriotically biased) ideas about historical mission success, kill ratios etc.

 

Group B pilots typically choose an aicraft based on its combat capability and how much of an advantage it will give them over others. They aren't concerned about nationalistic loyalties or skillful employment of real world tactics; just the potential to reach the top of the kill boards. They are quite satisfied with taking any handouts a game provides in terms of exploitable inconsistencies in realism and will put up a fierce fight when any discussion arises which sheds light on the area needing to be corrected.

 

Group C pilots will fly any aircraft, often because their skill far exceeds any advantage inconsistencies in the game can provide. They tend to accept the game for what it is, but still participate in debate for the sake of improving realism and gameplay. Fortunately, these are usually the ones that appear to be selected for Beta testing spots where (hopefully!) suggestions are more likely to be heard.

 

I will not take the risk of publicly assigning anyone here to any of those categories ;).

 

Anyway, I don't have much to offer as far as fact or opinion on the R-27T/ET. I will say that the case against maddogged kill success rate is more convincing. I imagine the ideal conditions required for such a kill would not be as easy to come by in real life as in Lock On. Such wishful expenditure of munitions would surely be frowned upon and very rarely (if ever) employed.

 

Edit: Chalk up another one for Canada :icon_supe.

[Breakshot]

"CУВ" (pronounced "SOOV") = Система Управления Вооружением = Weapons Control System (WCS)

Rgr, didnt think of that. It seems obvious now :)

 

the -27T/TEs NEED to be LOCKED ON to the target with their own seekers prior to being released off the rails.

 

will argue the opposite, given the same set of documents

 

Exaclty where in the manual did u find this? Cite the page where any such information is given.

[tflash]

Anyway, I don't have much to offer as far as fact or opinion on the R-27T/ET. I will say that the case against maddogged kill success rate is more convincing. I imagine the ideal conditions required for such a kill would not be as easy to come by in real life as in Lock On. Such wishful expenditure of munitions would surely be frowned upon and very rarely (if ever) employed.

 

Edit: Chalk up another one for Canada :icon_supe.

 

Add to this that when you would maddog a heater IRL and it goes wrong you would be on your way to Court Martial faster then you can eject.

 

In a NATO operational context, where most of the air is filled with blue and some little IFF malfunction risks you already a death sentence, I guess maddoggers would be kindly invited not only to leave the airspace but the whole airforce alltogether.

[AJ.eightFive]

Another good point.

 

This whole thing reminds me of the "bunny-hopping" debate that crops up in pretty much every tactical FPS forum. Like someone said earlier, such tactics might be physically possible, but in a realistic context are completely obsurd. I think this definitely applies here.

[EvilBivol-1]

Ugh, I can't post again! What the hell...

 

Seems to be a copy/paste problem.

[GGTharos]

The other funny thing is how much this flight manual is being taken as a bible while barely describing missile tactics or WEZ's ... :D

[EvilBivol-1]

Breakshot said,

Ok, here is a page from the manual again (pg, 169), which clearly states that u can release these missiles in a completely unguided manner (maddoging??) It states that u have to press some switch and hold it etc. Note also thats not simply jettisoning the weapon, as that is described as well. This is actually releasing the missile if required by any "tactical" situation. So it is very much possible to "maddog" an ET!

 

A little later, you said,

Did I say anythin about hitting a target?? All I stated was that the manual dictates the possibility of such a missile release, therefore proving a point that it is physically possible.

 

Well, yes, you did. That's what "maddoging" an ET would be for. Maddoging a missile has the purpose of hitting a target. What is described in the manual are two methods of "освобождения" (to be freed from) the weapons, either because further flight/landing with them is unsafe, or because the tactical situation calls for it. This latter part is not explained, but arguably refers to the need to maneuver your plane beyond the limits imposed by the Flight Control System when the weapons are still onboard.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, this release is activated not by the trigger, but by the depression of a button on a separate control, the PVI-10PE2. Again, this points to the fact this it is a non-engagement method of releasing the weapon.

 

A note to my fellow beta testers: if that PVI control section sounds familiar, it should. :) It is also present on the Ka-50 and includes the same function of "quick release of weapons" and is also distinct from the "jettison" function. Not currently modeled.

 

Another interesting page (pg 142) shows the thermal profile of targets for Headon/Rear/Close/Long Range/low alt/High alt/ for launching an intercept missile. So it clearly proves that these missiles are definitely employed at such ranges, or at least ment to be employed.

 

What "thermal profile"? It is a diagram of intercept flight patterns for given target altitute, range, and aspect. Has nothing to do with the ability to fire R-27Ts prior to attaining seeker lock. It also does not include any range numbers.

 

Same goes for my "inertial" guidance comment. I think its pretty obvious that the page from the manual that I raised up does not have any info on this...

Agreed! :)

 

EvilBivol actually disagreed with my conclusions based on interpretation....

...Such as: Maddoging was possible, now in this part he just misunderstood me as all I was trying to say that it could be possible because the missiles could infact be released without lock if the situation requires.

 

No, I truly think you are misunderstanding the "facts" of the manual, or simply reading in your own conclusions. Again, the "uncontrolled" release of the weapons is a safety procedure. To "deduce" from this that it points to the fact that the missile "could be" maddogged is wishful thinking.

 

Furthermore, having now read a few more pages in the manual, I am even more convinced. It turns out that the "uncontrolled launch" and "jettison" are actually one and the same, except that a "launch" is used from the "АПУ" (APU) rail pylons, and the "jettison" from the "АКУ" (AKU) pylons and/or "БД" (BD) bomb mounts. Page 103.

 

If someone could translate on what CYB stands for

There is a list of acronyms at the beginning of the manual. :rolleyes:

 

Now a few citations from me.

P. 110 (Describing the СУО-27Э2 WCS)

"Upon reception of targeting and (the following word is unclear to me - "разовых") commands for IRH missiles, the readiness signal is provided only after the direct lock of the target by the IR seeker, while for missiles with RH seeker-heads, the signal is provided no sooner than 2 s. (after processing of target cueing commands and adjustments for the frequency and control of radio-correction)."

 

Pg. 152 (Describing "ДРБ (D-R-B) - Дальный Ракетный Бой, or Long-range Missile Combat/BVR):

"5.6.2 Upon target lock by missiles with IRH, or readiness of missiles with RH, and entry into allowed launch ranges and the presence of the "LA" cue, perform missile launch."

 

Pg. 156 (Describing the "Оптика" - Optical CAC mode. Information is duplicated in the "Helmet" mode):

"For the R-27T1/ET1 missiles, the "LA" cue is provided while depressing the ENTER (Lock) button on the throttle and presence of lock by the IR seeker."

 

I think that'll do...

[AJ.eightFive]

Whew, just shy of 300 posts later! So how does this translate to Lock On as far as means of employing R-the 27-T/ET? I assume the current model is incorrect based on Pilotasso's first post but I'm a Group A guy so I don't really know very much about the Russian WCS ;).